Jan 11, 2013

Taking offence at Roxon’s human rights laws

The danger with the anti-discrimination law reform is that it is so particular, baroquely crafted and precise in what it attempts to police, that its operation would not be loud and upfront. Quiet and subtle doesn't get it done.

Guy Rundle — Correspondent-at-large

Guy Rundle


With the draft of the new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill in circulation, it was inevitable that the right-wing thunderers would be out in force. There would be a "chilling effect on free speech" according to the IPA's "Freedom Watch" (brought to you by ... a number of corporate interests they won't tell you about). While in The Australian, Greg Hunt says that the bill itself is un-Australian. Indeed. Perhaps a House committee on the activities of such should be convened. And the ever-reliable old ALP Grouper Bill Muehlenberg, of course, compared it to 1984, and managed to approvingly quote Watergate lunatic Chuck Colson in the process. That is all absurd hyperbole, all the more dangerous because it obscures the real dangers and demerits of the new act. Were there ever a situation where people were being thrown in jail Left, Right and centre for indulging in language or behaviour offensive to the eighteen different enumerated groups in the draft act, grouped by race, gender, s-xuality, etc, then the response would be immediate and the law would collapse immediately. The danger with the proposed new law is that it is so particular, baroquely crafted and precise in what it attempts to police and to exclude from policing, that its operation would not be loud and upfront, but quiet, subtle and bogged down in detail. The act's effect on free speech would not be chilling, but muffling. It would slowly but steadily enforce the idea that the state should micromanage what people say. Eventually people will come to accept this as a purely procedural process, like renewing a dog license, or paying a parking fine on-the-spot. You have to concede one thing to the drafters of Roxon's magnum opus. It is a real "advance" in the art of human rights legislation in that it connects bans on offensive speech so neatly with harassment and discrimination. Essentially, the act is a "unified field theory" of such laws, fusing them into one. Hitherto, these have been kept separate, with harassment tied closely to physical action or threat, discrimination to the exercise of power, and vicious speech governed by vilification laws. Now, each is expressed in terms of the other. So, while only racial vilification is specified as banned speech, discrimination based on offence or insult can be proven on eighteen different grounds, from political opinion, race, s-xuality and gender to potential pregnancy and breastfeeding. Those are worthy things to defend from real discrimination and harassment -- someone not getting a job or a promotion because "you'll just have a baby" or similar -- but they come to grief with the insult and offence provision. Some of these eighteen attributes of potential discrimination/harassment -- such as political origin -- have been restricted to the workplace, but it still leaves plenty of scope for vexatious and pointless interventions into the mere act of human conversation -- of a somewhat abrasive character -- pivoting on the law. Thus, say you're arguing with the office climate change denier, who's rabbiting on about sunspots and the upside-down hockey stick etc and you say to her/him: "if you believe that, you must be some sort of drooling moron". Banter where I come from, if not outright flirting, but let's say you have technical seniority over that moron. From my reading of the draft, that in itself would count as grounds for a discrimination/harassment claim -- even if no harm other than insult or offense is being alleged. That is, the moron in question doesn't have to allege that they missed out on a promotion because they'd expressed their beliefs -- they simply have to establish that they were offended in a workplace context. I can't see any other way of reading sections 19-1,2 of the act:

So, presumably you can protect yourself if you call everyone in the office a drooling moron as well. Unlike the valiant freedom watchers on the Right, I don't think that this sort of thing will shut down liberty. But it will add to the vexatious and vengeful claims that already rattle through the commissions (along with the many genuine ones). Most crucially, it concretises the idea that the ebb and flow of social behaviour can be micro-regulated, rather than empowering countervailing powers -- unions, advocacy groups -- to fight for a culture of equality and fairness at the social level. The effect of this is to relieve people of both the obligation to be decent, and of the need to fight for it as a social good. Instead, the law takes over, and the idea that social life is just a shadow of power and process becomes enforced.The real heart of this is the provisions on racial vilification, which are a Kafkaesque masterpiece. On the one hand the act imports the old provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act, which bans offence or insult based on race. However, to deal with criticisms following the Bolt case -- that the old 18c provision shut down debate -- the act includes the following caveats. Insulting or offensive speech may not be vilifying if:

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “Taking offence at Roxon’s human rights laws

  1. Serenatopia

    Lawyers are seriously over-represented in our Government. Always be warned when lawyers want to over-legislate!

    It is the same Roxon that has facilitated and empowered the continuous abuse of whistleblowers and taxpayers by paving the way for the Commonwealth and its agencies to misuse top-tier law firms to fight legitimate cases and claims.

    I am not looking forward to the transformation of our democracy to a dictatorship crafted by the hands of these duplicitous lawyers.

    I guess I will not be able to express myself as candidly and nor will Crikey, without the threat of Government and their cronies misusing these laws!

    Too bad for them—I am not scarred! Because I don’t just ‘genuinely believe’ that we are led by pirates, I actually have the evidence to support my allegations!

  2. Tim Macknay

    Guy, having just read the draft, I thoroughly agree with your concerns. With the inclusion of “insult” and “offend” in the general definition of discrimination, the Bill goes too far.

    Serenatopia, I don’t think much of your anti-lawyer prejudice. Lawyers are much more engaged in protecting liberties in this country than they are in curtailing it. All over the country there are lawyers working in Legal Aid offices, community legal centres, in small practices and pro bono (i.e. for free) to advocate for the rights of ordinary people who have been mistreated by government, business, or others with power over them. Your ignorant prejudice insults them all.

    And the main problem with the law as drafted isn’t that “government and its cronies” will misuse it, but that unscrupulous private parties will use it to silence their critics or harass people.

  3. Andybob

    A law against being rude. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to simply ban those with whom we disagree ? I have a little list ….

  4. Matt Hardin

    The main victims of prosecution by these laws will be protestors. This is the way the police used similar laws in the UK.

  5. Serenatopia

    Tim Macknay…I am a lawyer myself and I am all about standing up for justice and all…My comment was not targeted to the wonderful lawyers in Legal Aid offices, community legal centres and small practices…

    You should read my comment more closely before you accuse me of prejudice.

    I am concerned that lawyers that come from those unscrupulous ‘private parties’ you talk about including the likes of Roxon and Gillard…are running the country to the advantage of those unscrupulous ‘private parties’ and to the disadvantage of the public…including those protestors that Matt Hardin rightly identifies…

  6. Achmed

    This law would tie up our courts with a lot of vexatious claims. The arguement about was is offensive and what is not would take up thousands of dollars in lawyers fees and tie up already crowded courts.
    I see a similarity to current Bullying in the Workplace legislation.
    The problem comes when claims are found to be vexatious there is no “penalty” against the person making the claim. And at the end of the day when mud is thrown some sticks no matter the outcome

  7. Jonathan Raseta

    If you weren’t so interested in taking shots at ‘the Right,’ you’d realize that the IPA are making the same points that you make.

  8. Achmed

    If the IPA are defenders of freedoms why do they keep secret who the “corperate interests” are?

  9. Guy Rundle

    Yes Jonathan, but my point is that the Right is make them hyperbolically, and offering as an alternative a simplistic model in which we all have equal social power, and that there is nothing we, as a community, regard as abhorrent. I think that offensive or insulting attacks on someone’s nationhood should not be policed – but I, and many others, think that vicious attacks on physical-cultural race, should attract some penalty. Groups like the IPA, by offering simplistic non-solutions, don’t deal with the challenge the new law represents

  10. Deirdre Ryan

    Surely, this is a matter that is tied in with declaring Australia a REPUBLIC? and a matter that should be put to a REFERENDUM – not left to a few lefties and the Bureaucracy to cobble together. Especially at this time in Oz History as Politicians/Bureaucracy are of the poorest standard that I’ve EVER seen in my lifetime – both Federal & State in Australia.

    I don’t remember the Labor Party (or any political party) being given this impramatur on such a very important matter.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details